Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-11-11
THE PLEAS
PRESENTED BY THE DLPENSB IN THE
BAKER MURDER TRIAL,
Upon Which Argument is Being Made at New Ccu-
bsrland, for the Purpose Of Setting Aside the
Verdict and Securing a New Trial.
Special Telegram TO The Register.

| gpcStIt 4tNcyIuHt &c LhSStoto8-
NEW CUMBERLAND, W. VA, Novem'
Der 10.-The following are the pless &c,
forth by the defense in the Baker case, te
arrest judgment and set aside the verdict
for securing a new trial of the cause:
1.-THE Court erred in refusing the fling Of the
several pleas in abatement TO the indictment
and in oyerruling the same.
THE Court erred in overruling the motion to
quash the indictment.
3-The Court erred in overriding the demurreI
TO the indictment.
4-The Court erred in overruling the motor
for a change Of venue.
5-The Court erred in empanelling the jury.
6-The Court erred in admitting evidence of
fered by the State TO which defendant objected
and then and there excepted.
THE Court erred in excluding evidence of
fered by the defendant 10 which defendant eX
cepted
S-The Court erred in refusing TO charge upor
the propositions of law offered by defendant
9-The Court erred in modifying the PROPOSE
tious submitted by the defendant.
lO-The Court erred in giving the proposition
offered by the State.
ll-Misconduct of the jury during The trial.
l2-Demonstrations and applause by partie!
attending the trial, thereby influencing snC
prejudicing the jury.
l3-Newly discovered evidence.
li-Misconduct of the sheriff and his deputie
having control Of the jury during trial.
l5-The verlict is not sustained by the evi
dence.
l6--The verdict Is against the evidence.
1.-THE verdict is against the law.
At OBS p. M. Judge Boyd announced Il
the counsel hat he was ready to hear the
argument, and Sheriff Lindsay AGAR
brought the prisoner into court.
Col. Moore asked the Court if il was the
purpose of the Court to offer dispositions
first, or to offer them during the argu'
ment. The Court held that any argu'
ment that counsel should make would
meet his approval.
Mr.. Hutchinson asked to call the atten-
ton { the Court about affidavits having
been made this day upon which he now
made objection as not having had time for
to meet the same. Also objections to er
parte afidavits made in the State Of Ohio,
etc. being against the practice. That it
is taking advantage Of the State to take
witnesses living in this county u Of the
State and then take their affidavits to be
used in this case.
The Judge decided that the Gepositiops
must be read.
Mr.. Donehoo commenced the argument
by referring to the testimony of Wm.
Brown upon an alleged will and its con-
tents, and that ii was not pertinent to the
case, and that it was very prejudical to the
prisoner. The object was to prove that
BAKER HAD DESTROYED
that will, aud that this was one Of the cir
cumstances that was held to lead towards
the conviction of the prisoner.
The testimony of Daniel McCloud, Cru
Der and Crissinger, who held long o n
versations with tile prisoner after the muir
der was committed, was not admissible.
That his testimony was introduced as tes-
timony in chief and that not az con
Trajectory of what Baker had said while
on trial. There testimony should not
have been admitted.
We admit that this was murder of the
first degree; that we admit the corpus
delicti. But we raise the question as to
whether q murder wa committed before
2:40 p. m, May 9th, 1857. We deny that
the defendant could possibly do this crime
after that time that it might have been
done before, but there is no evidence to
show that it was.
DR.. Morris evidence is not worth a
bdube. He said that the murder waa lone
at 3 o'clock, and that could not be, as
Mrs. SweariDgen and Mrs. Brown stood
LIKE TWO GUARDIAN ANGELS,
as they were, to guard the life Of this a
What was their testimony? Not one
iota rs to the murder. He treated their
testimony as too ridiculous TO seriously
consider. Mrs. Swearingen must have
been laboring under a delusion.
The State when it alleges that the crime
was committed when these women were
there, the window must have been be-
spattereG with blood and hence they must
have had % chance to see those blood spots
on it. They SAW the blind down so they
could not see under it. There was no
blood there. Iappeal to the unprecedented
people when these women fail to see
these blood spots it is positive evidence
that there were no spots there. They did
not see blood because it was not there. At
most he only had forty inmates to have
done the whole thing, and TO my mind it
is an absolute impossibility, and the YER
dict is against laws Of the State and
against God Himself. l take it that all the
evidence adduced does not point in the
least to a circumstance in which the pris-
oner is guilty.